Does today's generation "see/understand" TV and movies differently?

[pengbuzz]

But isn't that the whole point of this thread? Debate is a lost art on the young most of the time. It's all about who can scream the loudest and get the most attention, not who can make the best points and support their arguments with the best evidence. Every time we point out what they're doing wrong, they scream and cry and whine, like we're putting an undue burden on them and then they go back to screaming shrilly because that's the only thing they know how to do.

Just wait, I bet someone will respond to this post denying it, then they'll scream and cry some more.



"Nazi" is anyone they don't like. These people act like 5-year olds.



I don't think these people are smart enough to even realize what they're doing. That's just the way the world works, according to the ridiculous snowflakes.

Someday, hopefully, they'll grow up and see just how stupid they've looked all along.

Q: What's the difference between a jet engine and a snowflake?

A: A jet engine stops whining when it hits the ground.

 

[JPH]

 

[joberg]

So then what's the issue?

The issue is that, when viewing an Historical movie/film a minimum of accuracy is wanted (if Kubrick was alive...) and needed by a fairly good percentage of the audience.
Some will care; others...not so much. Again, coming back at the source of all discussions: does it matter? In the great scheme of things, of course, one can argue that this discussion doesn't count as "changing the World"...I get that! And if nothing matters; then it's nihilism at its best!

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing is known or can be communicated. It has a corrosive effect that will end and, ultimately, destroy all moral and religious convictions. As we've seen, lately, there's a great deal of anger and anxiety in our society because of those corrosive ideas that brings more gloom than joy.

Language, knowledge and Truth are markers that shouldn't be dismissed easily. Those are important in my personal life

 

[joberg]

I guess it'd depend on how accurate it really was. If there honestly were no, say, black people around, then that'd be one thing. But if, for example, Skalitz historically did business with Algerian traders or whatever, I could see saying "There should at least be other people around who are people of color." I dunno. I think people's perceptions of history, though, are often not actually that historically accurate and they might be surprised to learn that history was different. Surprised enough to just reject it out of hand in some cases.


I think you can choose artistic reasons to cast someone else who doesn't fit that bill. It depends on what you're trying to do with your story and why you're trying to do it. But let's also not pretend that Hollywood gives a damn about historical accuracy when it almost never does.

I've posted about this before, but the TV show Vikings -- which aired on the History Channel -- was wildly historically inaccurate, and not just because it's based on sagas which are themselves of questionable historical accuracy. I'm talking, like, "Nobody really opened a book about this, did they?" levels of inaccuracy.

Examples: They make it seem like the Norsemen of the late 700s knew nothing of England, when they had already been trading with England for some time. Now, maybe we can excuse that as "Yes, but these specific Norsemen have no idea what England is," but it's still a stretch.

The Jarl of Ragnar's town gets pissy when the guys sail off, and summarily maims a blacksmith. In addition to this being like intentionally trashing the ONE factory that makes cars for you (blacksmiths were skilled labor back then), jarls had nowhere near that level of authority in Norse culture, which actually operated in a quasi-democratic fashion more often than not. Yet they have this guy acting like a generic feudal lord who can do whatever he wants with impunity. Not remotely accurate. The outfits tend to be inaccurate, too, nobody wears a helmet, etc., etc.

When they land in England, we're shown King Aella of Northumbria as one of the first English monarchs (heptarchs?) reigning during that era. Later, the main characters engage in the famed raid on the Holy Isle of Lindisfarne. So, what's inaccurate about that, you ask? Well, nothing, as long as you'd also be fine with a film that depicts Abraham Lincoln signing the Louisiana Purchase, or a story involving, say, JFK winning the presidential election of 1892. Aella ruled from around 862 until 867 when he was killed by Ragnar's ADULT sons. The raid on Lindisfarne happened some 70 years prior. It'd be like having Chuck Berry play Johnny B. Goode for Queen Victoria. But, of course, nobody cares because, whatever, it's just a show, it's just meant to entertain.

If you actually know anything about this era of history, it's glaringly inaccurate. But people don't, and so they don't care. And, I guess, why should they? Vikings is still a really fun, entertaining show, it's just...you know, not really historically accurate at all. But even if you do know about the history, it's ultimately not that big a deal when you just settle back and accept that this is gonna be an historic-ish show that's more about cool action than accurately portraying history.

And it's the main reason why I tend not to view those movies/series

 

[JPH]

The issue is that, when viewing an Historical movie/film a minimum of accuracy is wanted (if Kubrick was alive...) and needed by a fairly good percentage of the audience.
Some will care; others...not so much. Again, coming back at the source of all discussions: does it matter? In the great scheme of things, of course, one can argue that this discussion doesn't count as "changing the World"...I get that! And if nothing matters; then it's nihilism at its best!

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing is known or can be communicated. It has a corrosive effect that will end and, ultimately, destroy all moral and religious convictions. As we've seen, lately, there's a great deal of anger and anxiety in our society because of those corrosive ideas that brings more gloom than joy.

Language, knowledge and Truth are markers that shouldn't be dismissed easily. Those are important in my personal life

But you left out one major point, "there is no right or wrong" only applies to them.

Earlier this thread I commented how *you* are expected to agree if they make a valid point, but they will not agree when *you* make a valid point.

Nihilist love explaining how "wrong" you are for believing there is a right and wrong.

Ultimately, you find out they are OBSESSESED with right and wrong but want to be wrong and have it treated like it is right.

Do not apply rational thought to decipher the processes of someone behaving irrationally.

 

[pengbuzz]

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing is known or can be communicated. It has a corrosive effect that will end and, ultimately, destroy all moral and religious convictions. As we've seen, lately, there's a great deal of anger and anxiety in our society because of those corrosive ideas that brings more gloom than joy.

How to disprove nihilism then: walk into their house and start grabbing their stuff. You learn pretty quick that they do have values and know the number for 911 very well!!!

 

[Cephus]

But you left out one major point, "there is no right or wrong" only applies to them.

Earlier this thread I commented how *you* are expected to agree if they make a valid point, but they will not agree when *you* make a valid point.

Nihilist love explaining how "wrong" you are for believing there is a right and wrong.

Ultimately, you find out they are OBSESSESED with right and wrong but want to be wrong and have it treated like it is right.

Do not apply rational thought to decipher the processes of someone behaving irrationally.

Just to show that I'm being evenhanded here, that's not actually true. There are no OBJECTIVE standards for right and wrong, but that doesn't mean people can't have their own views on the subject and that we can't have shared social values to which people are held accountable. Is there anything actually "objectively wrong" with stealing? No. If a squirrel, since I've been watching them in my back yard lately, climbs the bird feeder and takes some seed, do we put them in jail? Of course not. They're just doing what squirrels do. If humans do it, then we tend to try to hold everyone accountable if we can, because it comes down to stuff we like and don't like. Morals are just enlightened self-interest and empathy, after all. There's no such thing as anything objectively right or wrong, you just have to look at moral standards around the planet to see that. Everyone has different views, even though some tend to coincide because humans tend to want a lot of the same things, but even with things like murder and rape, those aren't remotely universal. That's just not how morality works.

Now on the other side, you get people who will say there aren't any right or wrong, but who absolutely do expect everyone to side with them on their own subjective views. Morality is subjective but everyone needs to treat specific subjects where these people have strong emotional reactions, as if it were objective... or else. This is where ideas of "wrongthink" come in. Unfortunately, a lot of people who engage in this, they don't have very good arguments for their positions. Essentially, all they've got is "it hurts my fee-fees!" Well who cares? We don't run credible, functional societies based on fee-fees. This goes right back to the question for the thread, why can't they actually think about why they hold these positions and articulate them in some coherent, adult manner?

Because I don't think most of these people are adults. Just because you reach the age of majority doesn't mean you've matured. People get older simply by not dying. Getting smarter though, that requires some work that a lot of people are loathe to put any effort into.

 

[JPH]

How to disprove nihilism then: walk into their house and start grabbing their stuff. You learn pretty quick that they do have values and know the number for 911 very well!!!

Better yet, want to see grown men cry? If there is *ANY* crowd, inform the crowd that you do not promote violence, but since this person claims to be a "nihilist", anyone can do anything to them, and because of their beliefs, there should not be any consequence.

When the nihilist tries to call you out, simply point out that YOU believe in right and wrong, THEY don't. And give them a big wink, and remind the entire crowd of the nihilist claim.

Never seen anyone attacked but I have seen grown men cry.

 

[JPH]

Just to show that I'm being evenhanded here, that's not actually true. There are no OBJECTIVE standards for right and wrong, but that doesn't mean people can't have their own views on the subject and that we can't have shared social values to which people are held accountable. Is there anything actually "objectively wrong" with stealing? No. If a squirrel, since I've been watching them in my back yard lately, climbs the bird feeder and takes some seed, do we put them in jail? Of course not. They're just doing what squirrels do. If humans do it, then we tend to try to hold everyone accountable if we can, because it comes down to stuff we like and don't like. Morals are just enlightened self-interest and empathy, after all. There's no such thing as anything objectively right or wrong, you just have to look at moral standards around the planet to see that. Everyone has different views, even though some tend to coincide because humans tend to want a lot of the same things, but even with things like murder and rape, those aren't remotely universal. That's just not how morality works.

Now on the other side, you get people who will say there aren't any right or wrong, but who absolutely do expect everyone to side with them on their own subjective views. Morality is subjective but everyone needs to treat specific subjects where these people have strong emotional reactions, as if it were objective... or else. This is where ideas of "wrongthink" come in. Unfortunately, a lot of people who engage in this, they don't have very good arguments for their positions. Essentially, all they've got is "it hurts my fee-fees!" Well who cares? We don't run credible, functional societies based on fee-fees. This goes right back to the question for the thread, why can't they actually think about why they hold these positions and articulate them in some coherent, adult manner?

Because I don't think most of these people are adults. Just because you reach the age of majority doesn't mean you've matured. People get older simply by not dying. Getting smarter though, that requires some work that a lot of people are loathe to put any effort into.

Absolutely have to disagree. There are objective truths. A squirrel does not understand theft, so that is a null argument.

Cannibalism is wrong. Which is a common "there are no objective truths" argument. While some cultures may have cannibalism, no one wants to be eaten. And let's not forget prions that make it deadly.

Take a toy away from a child that is interested in the toy, and they will show you their gums and wail until they get it back.

Lying is wrong.

This gets into religion and beliefs in God. Thankfully, science (the tool used to evaluate our world) is disproving randomness.

 

[Cephus]

Absolutely have to disagree. There are objective truths. A squirrel does not understand theft, so that is a null argument.

Cannibalism is wrong. Which is a common "there are no objective truths" argument. While some cultures may have cannibalism, no one wants to be eaten. And let's not forget prions that make it deadly.

Take a toy away from a child that is interested in the toy, and they will show you their gums and wail until they get it back.

Lying is wrong.

This gets into religion and beliefs in God. Thankfully, science (the tool used to evaluate our world) is disproving randomness.

Nope, there aren't. You might WANT there to be, but there are no demonstrable, mind-independent truths, period. Not a one. If you think otherwise, present your evidence. What you are reporting here are cultural ideas, social beliefs that aren't universal. If cannibalism was wrong, then there wouldn't be any cannibals. There are, even to this day. People have always tried to come up with bald rationalizations why their internal, subjective ideas must be objectively true but it never works out. They've made up gods to pretend that if something powerful says it's wrong (how do you verify that?), then it must be wrong. Of course, that's subjective too because objectivity requires mind independence and the mind of a god is still subjective.

This is why it becomes such an emotional tool instead of an intellectual one. It's why people tend to emotionally over-react when their worldviews are challenged, because coming up with actual corroboratory evidence for these things, which is what science and rationality require, that's hard. Therefore, it's a lot easier for people to go with their feelings, rather than their intellect, which isn't rational.

Don't fall into that camp.

 

[JPH]

Nope, there aren't. You might WANT there to be, but there are no demonstrable, mind-independent truths, period. Not a one. If you think otherwise, present your evidence. What you are reporting here are cultural ideas, social beliefs that aren't universal. If cannibalism was wrong, then there wouldn't be any cannibals. There are, even to this day. People have always tried to come up with bald rationalizations why their internal, subjective ideas must be objectively true but it never works out. They've made up gods to pretend that if something powerful says it's wrong (how do you verify that?), then it must be wrong. Of course, that's subjective too because objectivity requires mind independence and the mind of a god is still subjective.

This is why it becomes such an emotional tool instead of an intellectual one. It's why people tend to emotionally over-react when their worldviews are challenged, because coming up with actual corroboratory evidence for these things, which is what science and rationality require, that's hard. Therefore, it's a lot easier for people to go with their feelings, rather than their intellect, which isn't rational.

Don't fall into that camp.

Actually, the trap is putting yourself and others into a box.

If something outside a system creates the system with unyielding rules/truths, dont look *within* the created system for truths. They are outside the system.

That is the trap.

Science is proving that.

Cannibalism exist because a particular society creates it, but no one *wants* to be eaten, and that is for all creatures. Knowing it is bad is outside of society.

 

[pengbuzz]

Absolutely have to disagree. There are objective truths. A squirrel does not understand theft, so that is a null argument.

Cannibalism is wrong. Which is a common "there are no objective truths" argument. While some cultures may have cannibalism, no one wants to be eaten. And let's not forget prions that make it deadly.

Take a toy away from a child that is interested in the toy, and they will show you their gums and wail until they get it back.

Lying is wrong.

This gets into religion and beliefs in God. Thankfully, science (the tool used to evaluate our world) is disproving randomness.

Actually, the trap is putting yourself and others into a box.

If something outside a system creates the system with unyielding rules/truths, dont look *within* the created system for truths. They are outside the system.

That is the trap.

Science is proving that.

Cannibalism exist because a particular society creates it, but no one *wants* to be eaten, and that is for all creatures. Knowing it is bad is outside of society.

If there is a system, then someone made that system and made the operating rules that it works under. We see that all the time in things that are designed and built (vehicles, technology, society, etc.) and that those rules tend to be constants (i.e. they don't change across cultures and societies).

What I think is going on here in tv and entertainment, is that the established rules and truths for making good shows and movies are being pointedly ignored by a newer generation who doesn't get how things actually work, and want to do it their own way. Then when it ends up being terrible and gets criticized, their emotions cannot handle it and they go nuclear.

Nope, there aren't. You might WANT there to be, but there are no demonstrable, mind-independent truths, period. Not a one. If you think otherwise, present your evidence. What you are reporting here are cultural ideas, social beliefs that aren't universal. If cannibalism was wrong, then there wouldn't be any cannibals. There are, even to this day. People have always tried to come up with bald rationalizations why their internal, subjective ideas must be objectively true but it never works out. They've made up gods to pretend that if something powerful says it's wrong (how do you verify that?), then it must be wrong. Of course, that's subjective too because objectivity requires mind independence and the mind of a god is still subjective.

This is why it becomes such an emotional tool instead of an intellectual one. It's why people tend to emotionally over-react when their worldviews are challenged, because coming up with actual corroboratory evidence for these things, which is what science and rationality require, that's hard. Therefore, it's a lot easier for people to go with their feelings, rather than their intellect, which isn't rational.

Don't fall into that camp.

If "there are no demonstrable, mind-independent truths, period. Not a one.", how do you know that's absolutely true?

With that said, Cephus: I sincerely hope you ahve a peaceful day today, my friend, and find a decent cup of coffee this morning. As for myself, I am departing this thread before this gets any further off-track. Apologies to the moderators for the veer-off into the great chasm, and best wishes to all!

-pengbuzz out!